Ayn Rand

“What I mean by “true” Libertarian has to do with the rabid, almost (but not quite) anarchic branch that wants to so emasculate government that it really can’t do anything.”

I wasn’t aware of this other view of Libertarianism. I’m sure most people when think Libertarian would view someone like myself, small federal government and follower of the Constitution. Most people wouldn’t think of a anarchic branch filled with 18 year olds who weren’t spanked enough when they were kids. Correct?

“What I mean by “true” Libertarian has to do with the rabid, almost (but not quite) anarchic branch that wants to so emasculate government that it really can’t do anything.”

I wasn’t aware of this other view of Libertarianism. I’m sure most people when think Libertarian would view someone like myself, small federal government and follower of the Constitution. Most people wouldn’t think of a anarchic branch filled with 18 year olds who weren’t spanked enough when they were kids. Correct?

Read the articles at mises.org, for instance, and you will start to see that they are philisophically opposed to virtually any government programs of any sort.

Do you want to live in a country with no public education whatsoever?

There is a sharp divide here, and it is really critical to understand:

There are some people who feel that the government should do everything, and there should be no private ownership (or almost none).

There are some people who feel that the government (irrespective of what level) should do some things, and should regulate some other things, and realize that it has to be paid for in the form of some sort of tax.

There are other people, who feel that the government should do almost nothing, and are unwilling to allow that any (or almost any) taxation should be levied at all.

Most Americans fall into the middle category, althought there is a very real debate on which things the government should control, so that group contains a spectrum of views ranging, roughly, from socialist to libertarian.

Another way of looking at it is this:

Communists take it on faith that the government is better at doing everything.

Extremist Libertarians/Objectivists (essentially anti-communists) take it on faith that the market is better at doing everything.

Most people, however, realize that the government is needed to do some things, and that private concerns can handle the rest.

I strongly suspect that it is a matter of timeframe. I think that businesses are very good at allocating resources and optimizing for profitability over short periods of time. Small businesses (family owned), are, IMO, the longest term thinkers, as they are willing to build a legacy for future generations. Corporations (publicly owned), OTOH, are often looking at things from a 5 year perspective, or less, because if they don’t see a quick ROI, the market will spank them, and reward their competition.

A good example of this, IMO, is housing. In the latest housing boom, many areas that would be good farmland saw lots of new houses built. The usability of that land for farming is probably compromised for centuries, as a result, and I have a very hard time believing that the developers of those houses really weighed their short term profits against the possible farming shortages of a century or more from now.

People who believe in the free market, however, assume that nothing is wrong. I think that pesticide residue has caused them permanent brain damage.

psiconoclast: I’m not disagreeing with you on your previous post. I believe most Americans think of the Libertarian Party when they think of Libertarians, not this anarchy view of the world. I remember in High School when our class took a poll for which political party they fit the most, by far the majority of people picked the Libertarian Party. Most people want a low taxes and a government that does not regulate morality outside the Constitution. I believe Libertarians are the middle ground, it is just impossible to educate people about a third party system in America. I believe the Libertarian Party website is http://www.lp.org.

Do you want to live in a country with no public education whatsoever?

As a public school teacher I certainly don’t. Yet it isn’t up to the Federal government to provide eduation it is up to the state governmnet. See the 10th Amendment. ‘No Child Left Behind’ is the result of the Federal Government getting into localized education and it clearly isn’t working.

The usability of that land for farming is probably compromised for centuries, as a result, and I have a very hard time believing that the developers of those houses really weighed their short term profits against the possible farming shortages of a century or more from now.

As a Libertarian I completely agree with you here and state governments, particularly Pennsylvania, the state I live in, is doing a great job about it. They are allowing farmers to pay no property tax so long as they don’t sell there land to developers. This also can be done through a Libertarian system.

People who believe in the free market, however, assume that nothing is wrong.

Because the heading is ‘Ayn Rand’ her followers would agree with the above quote. Yet I feel the majority of Libertarians believe the free market has its problems but creating a larger government certainly won’t solve those problems. We do have a government and it is manditory to be used in order to hold the free market accountable, this as mentioned can be done without a large federal government.

[quote author=“fletch_F_Fletch”]psiconoclast: I’m not disagreeing with you on your previous post. I believe most Americans think of the Libertarian Party when they think of Libertarians, not this anarchy view of the world. I remember in High School when our class took a poll for which political party they fit the most, by far the majority of people picked the Libertarian Party. Most people want a low taxes and a government that does not regulate morality outside the Constitution. I believe Libertarians are the middle ground, it is just impossible to educate people about a third party system in America. I believe the Libertarian Party website is http://www.lp.org.

The flaw of the Libertarian party is that they think that you can cut taxes, and cut government programs, and everything will sort itself out. I disagree. While I think that much could be done to eliminate government waste, there are a host of things that are done, at the federal level, that doing away with would be unambiguously bad.

Do you want to live in a country with no public education whatsoever?

As a public school teacher I certainly don’t. Yet it isn’t up to the Federal government to provide eduation it is up to the state governmnet. See the 10th Amendment. ‘No Child Left Behind’ is the result of the Federal Government getting into localized education and it clearly isn’t working.

That’s a false dilemma. NCLB sucks, to be sure, but that is because it is bad legislation. It does not follow logically that all federal level educational legislation would be similarly flawed.

Also, let’s have a frank discussion about the constitution, AKA, the Holy Text of the Libertarians: It wasn’t written by God. It is a really damn good start on a blueprint for how to have a good country, in the 1700’s. So, let me say what everybody should be saying, but seldom does: Our goal is not primarily to follow the constitution, but primarily to achieve the best life, collectively, that we can, for ourselves and our posterity. The constitution is always secondary, a codification of our best working theories on how to achieve that principle goal, with respect to government.

The usability of that land for farming is probably compromised for centuries, as a result, and I have a very hard time believing that the developers of those houses really weighed their short term profits against the possible farming shortages of a century or more from now.

As a Libertarian I completely agree with you here and state governments, particularly Pennsylvania, the state I live in, is doing a great job about it. They are allowing farmers to pay no property tax so long as they don’t sell there land to developers. This also can be done through a Libertarian system.

But if it were a fully Libertarian situation, nobody would be paying property taxes. Look at the intellectual underpinnings of your party, and you will see that this sort of thing is considered “market manipulation”, and after the initiation of force, is one of the great sins that Libertarian thinkers preach about.

People who believe in the free market, however, assume that nothing is wrong.

Because the heading is ‘Ayn Rand’ her followers would agree with the above quote. Yet I feel the majority of Libertarians believe the free market has its problems but creating a larger government certainly won’t solve those problems. We do have a government and it is manditory to be used in order to hold the free market accountable, this as mentioned can be done without a large federal government.

It isn’t big government that is the answer, and I’ll thank you to stop repeating this bit of slanderous propoganda. The answer is good government, and when you believe that such a thing is impossible, you are blind to any other possibility.

“The flaw of the Libertarian party is that they think that you can cut taxes, and cut government programs, and everything will sort itself out. I disagree.”

I’m intersted in seeing some examples where it won’t. On the side I don’t think ‘everything will sort itself out’ there will always be problems however which system works best.

“There are a host of things that are done, at the federal level, that doing away with would be unambiguously bad.”

Like what? Give me a couple

It does not follow logically that all federal level educational legislation would be similarly flawed.

However it does follow that is it is unconstitutional. I will discuss this further point below.

Also, let’s have a frank discussion about the constitution, AKA, the Holy Text of the Libertarians: It wasn’t written by God. It is a really damn good start on a blueprint for how to have a good country, in the 1700’s. So, let me say what everybody should be saying, but seldom does: Our goal is not primarily to follow the constitution, but primarily to achieve the best life, collectively, that we can, for ourselves and our posterity. The constitution is always secondary, a codification of our best working theories on how to achieve that principle goal, with respect to government.

It is a really damn good start, a much better start than any other revolution. You are acting as if Libertarians feel the Constitution is set in stone, it certainly isn’t. Why are you making a claim that is clearly false. If our nation wants to make changes the Constitution allows these changes to be made, they are called amendments. If our primary goal isn’t to follow the Constitution than a man is no longer held to any standard. From this concept certainly doesn’t flow Democracy. This is why you were taught the ‘Magna Carta’ in grade school. Historians recognize the importance of such acts when man puts himself below the law. If you feel the Constitution is below man than what holds man accountable? Just looking at the case of war the Constitution makes it VERY clear that Congress approves war provisions and the President conducts the war. However our constitution is no longer taking seriously and we have seen the negative affects this has had on our foreign policy. Read Peter Irons “War Powers” for a crash course.

“best life, collectively, that we can, for ourselves and our posterity.”

This can be done through the Constitution. Yet if this is your standard for allowing our government to function, without being held down by the rule of law, than watch out.

But if it were a fully Libertarian situation, nobody would be paying property taxes.

I haven’t met any Libertarians who are against property tax, not to say their arn’t any, I have though met many people against Income Tax and their arguments I must say are pretty strong.

It isn’t big government that is the answer, and I’ll thank you to stop repeating this bit of slanderous propoganda.

Wow, where did this come from? Such strong emotion, are you listening to “Bad Religion” while posting, that punk music gets me fired up to.

The answer is good government, and when you believe that such a thing is impossible, you are blind to any other possibility

.

The problem is you don’t take the Constitution to be the rule of the law. You would rather take the best working theories on how to have a government function as your rule of law. Your answer is good government for the collective people. I think I heard this approach before. The problem is when the Constition is not superior to one’s approach that approach can do wire-tapping and put prisoners in CIA detention camps and create an Imperial Superpower, but you know its for the good of the people. Remember, the Constitution can change but it should never be disregarded as a subordinate approach to economic or social policies. If you want to change the system and make a larger central government do it through the Constitution not against it.

“The flaw of the Libertarian party is that they think that you can cut taxes, and cut government programs, and everything will sort itself out. I disagree.”

I’m intersted in seeing some examples where it won’t. On the side I don’t think ‘everything will sort itself out’ there will always be problems however which system works best.

It isn’t an all or nothing proposition, though. The correct answer is to let things sort themselves out, until that does not work, then enact laws to compensate for the places where things don’t sort out. Sometimes, the laws will help, and sometimes they will make things worse, and when they make things worse, they should be revised, replaced, or scrapped.

“There are a host of things that are done, at the federal level, that doing away with would be unambiguously bad.”

Like what? Give me a couple

National defense
NIH/CDC

I could go on, but you asked for a couple, and there a couple are.

It does not follow logically that all federal level educational legislation would be similarly flawed.

However it does follow that is it is unconstitutional. I will discuss this further point below.

Also, let’s have a frank discussion about the constitution, AKA, the Holy Text of the Libertarians: It wasn’t written by God. It is a really damn good start on a blueprint for how to have a good country, in the 1700’s. So, let me say what everybody should be saying, but seldom does: Our goal is not primarily to follow the constitution, but primarily to achieve the best life, collectively, that we can, for ourselves and our posterity. The constitution is always secondary, a codification of our best working theories on how to achieve that principle goal, with respect to government.

It is a really damn good start, a much better start than any other revolution. You are acting as if Libertarians feel the Constitution is set in stone, it certainly isn’t. Why are you making a claim that is clearly false. If our nation wants to make changes the Constitution allows these changes to be made, they are called amendments. If our primary goal isn’t to follow the Constitution than a man is no longer held to any standard. From this concept certainly doesn’t flow Democracy. This is why you were taught the ‘Magna Carta’ in grade school. Historians recognize the importance of such acts when man puts himself below the law. If you feel the Constitution is below man than what holds man accountable? Just looking at the case of war the Constitution makes it VERY clear that Congress approves war provisions and the President conducts the war. However our constitution is no longer taking seriously and we have seen the negative affects this has had on our foreign policy. Read Peter Irons “War Powers” for a crash course.

“best life, collectively, that we can, for ourselves and our posterity.”

This can be done through the Constitution. Yet if this is your standard for allowing our government to function, without being held down by the rule of law, than watch out.

You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that we should follow the Constitution - we should. I am saying that Libertarians are far too quick to point to the Constitution, and show that some problem that we might want to solve via government is not provided for there, and claim victory.

Of course the Constitution can be altered, and most of the time, it does not have to be, because regular old legislation is all that is needed.

But if it were a fully Libertarian situation, nobody would be paying property taxes.

I haven’t met any Libertarians who are against property tax, not to say their arn’t any, I have though met many people against Income Tax and their arguments I must say are pretty strong.

I’m against personal income tax, so you won’t get much of an argument from me on this point. I favor moving to an almost all environmental tax. The cost of those taxes will show up in product prices, and then consumers can do what they do best - look for the best deals.

It isn’t big government that is the answer, and I’ll thank you to stop repeating this bit of slanderous propoganda.

Wow, where did this come from? Such strong emotion, are you listening to “Bad Religion” while posting, that punk music gets me fired up to.

It is strong rhetoric, but I assure you that, emotionally speaking, I am actually very mellow right now. I am just trying various tactics to get past the memetic armor, and force (for even a short time) a different frame of mind. The slander/propaganda is that when Libertarian/Objectivist types rail against government programs, they often chant the “no big government” mantra. It poisons the well of debate, because it conjurs up an image of a government growing out of control. This image is not accidental, but carefully cultivated to panic people into refusing to consider any sort of new government program.

The answer is good government, and when you believe that such a thing is impossible, you are blind to any other possibility

.

The problem is you don’t take the Constitution to be the rule of the law. You would rather take the best working theories on how to have a government function as your rule of law. Your answer is good government for the collective people. I think I heard this approach before. The problem is when the Constition is not superior to one’s approach that approach can do wire-tapping and put prisoners in CIA detention camps and create an Imperial Superpower, but you know its for the good of the people. Remember, the Constitution can change but it should never be disregarded as a subordinate approach to economic or social policies. If you want to change the system and make a larger central government do it through the Constitution not against it.

As I said before, I do take the Constitution seriously, and believe that we should abide by it. I also feel that there are certain things that we need to do, for the collective good. If those things conflict with the Constitution, we need to change it, instead of using that conflict as a reason not to do anything.

The National defense is placed in the Constitution, therefore Libertarians, the sense I speak of, have no problem with. The CDC is something one could easilly allow from Libertarian perspective. I think we both started with a different view of Libertarian and I find most of the things you have said in your last comment fine.

The National defense is placed in the Constitution, therefore Libertarians, the sense I speak of, have no problem with. The CDC is something one could easilly allow from Libertarian perspective. I think we both started with a different view of Libertarian and I find most of the things you have said in your last comment fine.

Cool!

Now, in spite of my irritation with Libertarians, there is something that I have said many times: If half of all the Republicans in government could be replaced with Libertarians, and half of all Democrats could be replaced with Greens, then we might actually have a healthy political dialog in this country again.